State ex rel. Tayse v. Baker Ross, 2020 Ohio 3014

Relator James Tayse (incarcerated at Lebanon Correctional Institution) filed a second petition for a writ of procedendo asking Judge Susan Baker Ross to rule on a motion.
Tayse previously filed a petition that was dismissed for failing to comply with R.C. 2969.25 filing requirements for inmates.
R.C. 2969.25(A) requires an affidavit listing all civil actions or appeals filed in the prior five years with specific details: case name, case number, court, parties, brief description, and outcome.
Tayse submitted an affidavit stating he had filed two civil actions (a writ of procedendo in the Ninth District and a writ of habeas corpus in Warren County) but omitted required specifics (case names, numbers, parties, descriptions, and outcomes).
The court held that strict compliance with R.C. 2969.25 is mandatory and dismissed the petition for noncompliance; costs were taxed to Tayse and the clerk was ordered to serve notice of judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tayse complied with R.C. 2969.25(A) affidavit requirements	Tayse had filed an affidavit identifying prior actions (two actions) and thus satisfied the statute	Tayse's affidavit omitted mandatory details (case names, numbers, parties, descriptions, outcomes) and therefore did not comply	Court held Tayse did not comply with R.C. 2969.25(A) and dismissed the petition
Whether dismissal is mandatory for noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25	Tayse implicitly argued his filing sufficed (or sought relief despite defects)	Respondent argued statute mandates dismissal for failure to meet requirements	Court held dismissal is required; statute demands strict/mandatory compliance

State ex rel. Graham v. Findlay Mun. Court, 106 Ohio St.3d 63 (requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory; failure to comply warrants dismissal)
State v. Henton, 146 Ohio St.3d 9 (R.C. 2969.25 requires strict compliance; noncompliance warrants dismissal)